‘White fragility’ first developed by Dr. Robin DiAngelo, is described as a “state in which even a minimum amount of (white) racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves.”
This doctrine suggests white people accustomed to lifetimes of privilege, clutch at their jewels whenever fairly critiqued. It states that as whites own both the history and the present, their grievances are minimal and last in the intersectionality Olympics.
Hence the pejorative ‘angry white male’ utilized by the Left, to downplay the existence of described problems.
Question is: are Leftist descriptions of ‘white fragility’ accurate?
In truth, reality does reveal some scope for concerns raised by whites that extend beyond irrational, excessive claims. These include:
Hectoring on ‘white privilege’ and the subsequent implications:
Accepted as gospel truth to modern Left adherents is ‘white privilege.’ ‘White privilege’ states that because whites are wealthier, the majority of politicians, and have inherited systems of institutional racism, they are comparatively advantaged to ethnic minorities.
This mantra appeared in the 2016 election cycle, when Hillary Clinton exhorted white people in Ohio to “do more to recognize our privilege.” While Clinton was in friendly territory at the NAACP convention, how does lecturing all whites for their presumptive prosperity make any sense?
For the idea that judging immutable physical characteristics is an eternal guide to ‘privilege,’ neglects the concerns of disadvantaged folk who don’t fit this narrow ideological paradigm.
This philosophy, which would theoretically consider an obese, cancer- ridden 80 year old white man advantaged compared to a 21 year old, able- bodied black woman, is utterly inane, yet is the type of rubbish whites are familiarized to.
Truthfully, the path to economic prosperity regardless of race, is largely the same.
According to the Brookings Institute, there are three steps poor teens should follow to reach the middle class. They are:
a) Graduate from high school;
b) Do not have children till after married; and
c) Get a full time job.
Among Americans who followed these steps, the poverty rate is just 2% and such outcomes extend across all races.
The Brookings Institute particularly found illegitimacy rates twere strongly correlated with high levels of poverty, and a staggering 70 % of new African Americans are born out of wedlock, compared to 40 % of new white Americans. Clearly these cultural choices are ravaging the livelihoods of African Americans. As in 1965, despite segregation and widespread racism, the African American illegitimacy rate was 25 %. So is America a more racist country than the 1960’s, and does white privilege force blacks into these harmful cultural practices? Hardly.
While these are American statistics, similar principles regarding ‘white privilege’ apply to Australia. As despite White Australia and Indigenous Australia having difficult histories, modern Aboriginal woes cannot be attributed to white privilege.
Any reasonable person would acknowledge Indigenous Australians have been poorly treated, discriminated against, and subject to genuine racism in the past.
But notwithstanding limitless modern entitlements fed to Aboriginals, in addition to a national push towards ‘closing the gap,’ the gulf between Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australia widens every year.
Yet could anyone argue Australia is becoming more racist and dominated by white supremacy each year? Evidently, the invisible racist who seeks to pull down Indigenous Australia is a mythical creation, and an Indigenous culture of entitlement is instead to blame.
Government entitlements aside, Indigenous people are raised within an environment that pushes them towards an anti- European, anti-Australian ideology. Growing opposition against Australia Day reflects this sentiment, which the Australian Left’s de facto leader in Bill Shorten has flirted with changing. That changing Australia Day because it celebrates an ‘invasion’ are factually flawed grounds, or that changing it would undermine Australia’s moral underpinnings, are scarcely considered. Similarly, Indigenous Australians are lied to about there being a ‘Stolen Generation,’ which aside from its historical inaccuracy, equates pre- 1970’s Australia to Nazi Germany with Aboriginals the equivalent of Auschwitz Jews.
Meanwhile, token welcome to country ceremonies, NAIDOC week, and legally sanctioned measures which combat reasonably critical speech against Aboriginals, yet excuse racially derogatory language against whites, create a 2 tier system and resulting Indigenous entitlement.
None of this is to condemn Indigenous people. In fact, Aboriginals are victims of Leftist ideologues who exploit them for political control. When Indigenous people believe they’re persecuted by external forces including ‘white privilege,’ it becomes incredibly difficult to overcome disadvantage and dependency on big government. Consequently, Indigenous Australians are bound to vote for parties who over the short term provide further benefits, but ultimately uphold their perpetual disadvantage. This political strategizing is easy enough to understand: but sinister nonetheless. Moreover, when equal outcome is confused with equal opportunity as the Left tends to do, we delve into problematic, deceptive territory.
Out of ‘white privilege’ comes the next progression for Leftists: white people are not morally permitted to speak out on key issues.
While this ironically subscribes to the definition of racism, a person’s race does not change the worth of their ideas. Leftists salivated over a movie depicting the roles of 2 African- American scientists, who helped put Neil Armstrong on the moon. Can they not see the same racist framework that once dismissed African American intelligence, is being re- einvigorated by their own?
Besides being instructed their opinions are inferior on racial grounds, ‘white’ is a pejorative not only permitted, but applauded. After Republican politician Don Young recently made controversy, he was condemned for being an ‘old white’ man. David Leyonhjelm has faced similar criticisms in Australia for his existence as a ‘white man.’ Moreover, critics of President Trump have claimed his presence as a ‘white man’ was why he won the Presidency. But could anyone in their most fanciful of dreams, argue President Trump’s race helped ease ferocious attacks made against him? Perhaps the most egregious example yet of anti- white bigotry, was the Left’s castigation of Ottom Warmbier. Just hours after this American (who happened to be white) died after being brutally beaten by North Korean tyrants, a millennial magazine implored its audience to view his murder as a chance to ‘watch whiteness work.’
Clearly if anybody had such prejudiced, racialist critiques of others who weren’t white, universal, deafening condemnations of ‘racism’ would readily commence.
However, being white uniquely precludes one from the capacity to use race as a defensive mechanism: a striking non ‘privilege.’